> Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functi

> Maybe we don't all need to read the original Darwin, but I do think there is a serious gap in most peoples' knowledge of how the natural world actually functions, how all the components in an ecosystem are interdependent and necessary. Yes and there are many great contemporary books that cover just these things, from Gould, to Dawkins, to Wilson, to Dennett, to Sagan. It is rare that the originator of an idea is also its best exponent. Though given the praise of its accessibility and interest here I'm willing to give Origin another thought. > Our failure to keep people educated on these matters to a base level has probably seriously contributed to the ecological catastrophe we are experiencing I'm not sure this is true. Environmentalism was basically born in the 60s. Conservation some 40-60 years before that. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous things about the health benefits of smoke, heavy metals and oil. Americans nearly extincted the buffalo for its industrial uses. An Australian tycoon almost extinct an island chain of penguins and seals by reducing them down to oil which was sold round the world. I could go on as there are many stories of human exploitation of the natural world that go back to ancient times (read about how Roman silver mines in Spain reshaped the Earth into a hell hole there) and beyond. We are honestly probably at peak -people caring about the environment-. It obviously has to go a lot further if we are to avert disaster and stop the extinction event humans have been driving for 15,000 years. But we are hardly at a nadir for people's understanding and love of the natural world.